Legal Opinion · Dissent

McDonald, County Treas. v. Duckworth

Supreme Court of Oklahoma

Decided October 8, 1946No. 32528Published

1Dissent

HURST, V.C.J.

There are two reasons why I dissent.

1. The majority opinion is based on the rule that the former owners were “in no manner obligated to pay the taxes” assessed against their land. While it is true that ad valorem taxes assessed against land are not debts in the sense that a personal judgment may be recovered by the state or one of its municipal subdivisions against the owner, and consequently the owner is under no legal obligation to pay the taxes (City of Sapulpa v. Land, 101 Okla. 22, 223 P. 640), and the state must collect the taxes by sale of the property, yet there is a…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. City of Sapulpa v. LandSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1924
  2. Burnett v. ColeSupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1943
  3. Nordman v. School District No. 43Supreme Court of Oklahoma · 1941
  4. American Exchange Corporation v. LowrySupreme Court of Oklahoma · 1936

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API